Protestantism - What is it?

[thessalonian]

In reading all the posts from protestants on various boards and listening to many radio shows attended protestant services my assessment of protestantism is that it is a smorgasbord of theologies of which each individual protestant will have their scriptures lined up to defend as the Word of God, yet which clearly cannot all be true. I.e. 7 year premil, 3.5year pre-mil, postmil, no-mil, amil, etc. etc. Just as one example of the multitude of theologies on one topic that you all will defend to the grave.

Put another way - They protest the Catholic Church (Whch is where they get their name) for they KNOW that she is full of errors, yet boldly assert a selection from the smorgasbord of conflicting doctrine that they KNOW are completely compatible with the Word of God.

My question is how can they claim to KNOW anything?

It is funny, I listen to a local protestant radio station and it has lutherans on declaring baptismal regeneration and infant baptism and then baptists on who deny both of these things. OSAS and the possibility of falling away, dispensationalists, preterists, partial preterists, you name it and various combinations of the above.

Now that the pot is stirred. Discuss.



Gerald

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Protestantism is equal parts “reinventing & misinterpreting the wheel” and “small t tradition over large T Tradition.” Pray for unity. :byzsoc:

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

In reading all the posts from protestants on various boards and listening to many radio shows attended protestant services my assessment of protestantism is that it is a smorgasbord of theologies of which each individual protestant will have their scriptures lined up to defend as the Word of God, yet which clearly cannot all be true. I.e. 7 year premil, 3.5year pre-mil, postmil, no-mil, amil, etc. etc. Just as one example of the multitude of theologies on one topic that you all will defend to the grave.

Put another way - They protest the Catholic Church (Whch is where they get their name) for they KNOW that she is full of errors, yet boldly assert a selection from the smorgasbord of conflicting doctrine that they KNOW are completely compatible with the Word of God.

My question is how can they claim to KNOW anything?

It is funny, I listen to a local protestant radio station and it has lutherans on declaring baptismal regeneration and infant baptism and then baptists on who deny both of these things. OSAS and the possibility of falling away, dispensationalists, preterists, partial preterists, you name it and various combinations of the above.

Now that the pot is stirred. Discuss.



Gerald

I am in a Protestant Forum and I still mystified…

 

[onemangang]

I think it would be much more simple if Protestants would recognize they are in Protest. If not, what was the intent in the beginning, but to REFORM the Church, hence the title Reformers? The so called reformers were in protest against some of the doctrines and practices of Holy Mother Church. Now, you have many that just simply say I’m “Christian” and reject the Reformers intent, and despise the term Protestant all together. You see a great move away from the Confessional Traditions like Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodist, Baptist traditions and others…

Many that have moved away from those traditions that have not become Catholic either go to some sort of Evangelical non-denominational Christian community, or do not attend “church” altogether. Quite often they will have a pastor that they say has been “chosen by God” to teach the word, and hasn’t any knowledge of history, Greek or Hebrew languages, or philosophy, and is autonomous, beholden to no one. They say they have the freedom to think for themselves, but the reality of the situation is they have the freedom to be way off track. Many seem sincere, but one can be passionate, and sincere, and still be sincerely wrong!

I attended a non-denominational evangelical community, and it didn’t take long to find myriads of contradictions in the pastors sermons. The few that I have been to, all would pick and choose from many other preachers of the past, or popular ones of the day. You can see the traditions of old in each, they remove infant baptism and baptize youth/adults upon a confession. A TRADITION that stems back to the Anabaptist. The problem is, often the pastor has no idea when and why people baptize infants, and may never have heard of Anabaptist. All he knows is that Catholics do it, so it must be wrong. The same pastor without the internet would be lost when interpreting scripture, being that he or she is only reading a select few commentaries. Many read commentaries from a slew of different opinions and pick and choose what FEELS right. You will have a bit of Covenant theology, in the first part of the sermon, then a dispensational view on the later part. You will have a pick an choose T.U.L.I.P. My pastor would say that man is Totally depraved, Unconditionally Elected, and will Persevere to the end, yet speak out against Limited atonement and Irresistible grace, all while holding to Calvin’s Penal substitution?

Protestantism, as I see it, can be summed up is one bible verse Psalm 126:1** Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it**. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it.

Here is a good article below on how will protestants know when to return. After all the "Reformation started to “REFORM” the Church, not create splinter communities that have become modern day Protestantism. Now the push is to remove the label of Protestant, and call it Christian.

calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/reformation-sunday-2011-how-would-protestants-know-when-to-return/

 

[pablope]

In reading all the posts from protestants on various boards and listening to many radio shows attended protestant services my assessment of Put another way - They protest the Catholic Church (Whch is where they get their name) for they KNOW that she is full of errors, yet boldly assert a selection from the smorgasbord of conflicting doctrine that they KNOW are completely compatible with the Word of God.

My question is how can they claim to KNOW anything?

It Now that the pot is stirred. Discuss.



Gerald

This one is enlightening…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

. This particular dilemma is not unique to Baptists; it follows from the very nature of Protestantism, because Protestantism, like Mormonism, presupposes ecclesial deism. Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.” Deism is distinct from theism in that theism affirms not only that God created the world, but also that God continually sustains and governs all of creation. Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.

Why is ecclesial deism intrinsic to Protestantism and Mormonism? Because any person who chooses to leave the Catholic Church or remain separated from her, while intending to remain a Christian, has to claim that the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy or apostasy, so that separating from her is justified. We can find this idea throughout the history of the Catholic Church. The Gnostics of the second century justified being separated from the Catholic Church by claiming that even the Apostles had perverted Christ’s teachings. St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

Of course ecclesial deists typically do not describe their own position as a form of deism, nor do they see it as such. One very significant factor preventing ecclesial deists from seeing their own ecclesial deism as such is an implicit Gnosticism (anti-sacramentalism) regarding the nature of the Church. The Church, according to this conception, is not a unified body with a visible hierarchy, but something in itself purely spiritual in nature, visible only in the sense that one can see and touch embodied Christians (and their children) who are, by their faith alone, presently joined to it.11 Conceiving of the Church as in itself spiritual and invisible allows a person to believe that Christ has always faithfully preserved His [invisible] Church, even while allowing the leaders of the Catholic Church to fall into heresy, apostasy, or perversion of the Gospel.12

 

[brb3]

… my assessment of protestantism is that it is a smorgasbord of theologies of which each individual protestant will have their scriptures lined up to defend as the Word of God, yet which clearly cannot all be true. I.e. 7 year premil, 3.5year pre-mil, postmil, no-mil, amil, etc. etc. Just as one example of the multitude of theologies on one topic that you all will defend to the grave.

Put another way - They protest the Catholic Church (Whch is where they get their name) for they KNOW that she is full of errors, yet boldly assert a selection from the smorgasbord of conflicting doctrine that they KNOW are completely compatible with the Word of God.

My question is how can they claim to KNOW anything?

Gerald … … you are overstating the case here.

For example, the RCC holds to amillenialism, but also believes in a Post-Trib Rapture. Yet, even the RCC admits we can’t definitively state how the endtime events will play out.

Most Christian Protestants don’t worry one hoot about the the last days on Planet Earth or Hal Linsey. They are focused upon their Personal Relationship with Christ, and many are doing Christian Service Gracious Works ] for the Kingdom. A large # don’t hold to OSAS as dogma … and do see that they must persevere in their faith & demonstrate good works. The Evangelicals are 4-square behind the Catholic Church’s stand against abortion. Many are now supporting Rick Santorum, the Catholic Candidate. Many I know, and discuss Catholicism with, are in sync with most of what we Catholics believe … and many would have already come home to the Church, if not for the many Priest Pedophile scandals over last 15 years.

When we clean our house of scandal, and do a better job of inviting Protestants to our Mass … I’m convinced the Church can unify a great # of Protestants back into our Church. If you can show a Protestant the Fullness of Truth in Catholicism, by using scripture, they will move to the Greater Light of Truth. They do have a large portion of the Fullness of Truth in their hearts/minds … but, we also know they have been taught alot of error, thru no fault of their own. We have our own heretic to blame for the dis-unity … our Priest Martin Luther. So, we have an obligation to reach out to our Protestant Brothers/Sisters IN CHRIST … and lead them via the SCRIPTURES which they adore … to see the early Catholic Church… in the New Testament and in Early Church History.

Ultimately, its the Holy Spirit that will convince them to come into our Church. The Spirit, working thru compassionate Catholics, to draw them to the GREATER LIGHT, with the full 7 Sacraments, and with the Supernatural Eucharist that they so need to open their eyes and lead them away from the error, THAT THEY WERE TAUGHT as children.

Many Catholic converts were raised as Protestants. We know how hard it was to break away from our heritage/traditions, and see the full truth that Catholicism holds. Lets all here at CAF do our best to encourage them, and let scripture make our case to them. They will not reject scripture … if we explain it well to them, using multiple scriptural sources, from the Bible, to prove the truth that we proclaim.

 

[x1980x]

In reading all the posts from protestants on various boards and listening to many radio shows attended protestant services my assessment of protestantism is that it is a smorgasbord of theologies of which each individual protestant will have their scriptures lined up to defend as the Word of God, yet which clearly cannot all be true. I.e. 7 year premil, 3.5year pre-mil, postmil, no-mil, amil, etc. etc. Just as one example of the multitude of theologies on one topic that you all will defend to the grave…

In most of the Protestant communities that I’ve had contact with, end times theology (e.g. premil, amil, etc.) is of secondary importance and, when two Protestants disagree, they just disagree, they don’t anathematize each other or break fellowship.

 

[smp501]

I don’t know who said this but there is some quote that goes something like “There are as many protestant theologies as there are protestants.”

This day and age it is really impossible to speak of Protestantism as a whole, other than to say that it is wrong

Seriously though, the discrepancies come from the reformation-era Solas, mainly Sola Scriptura. This is the belief that the Bible alone contains the complete Special Revelation of God to man. This is a response to the Catholic Magisterium. Because of Sola Scriptura, people started trying to make connections between different parts of the Bible and interpret them themselves. Depending on the Protestant, early church history, including early interpretations of scripture, can mean a whole lot or nothing at all. Many people build complex theologies without understanding the various styles of writing used in the Bible (histories vs. poetry vs. moral teaching, etc.), and take the Bible literally. Some treat the New Testament as if it were written specifically for us right now, and take a lot of the original meaning out of the text. It really is hard to try to talk to people who do this because they can normally pull out two or three “proof verses” entirely out of context to back up whatever claim they make. There are other Protestants who take the cultural aspect of the texts too far, and claim that things such as homosexuality were only offensive to that culture, not to God. Instead of taking the Bible too literally, they throw out texts that are uncomfortable.

The Catholic Church is special because we have the Magisterium, the preserved infallible teachings of the Church fathers throughout the ages. The Bible is extremely complex, and cannot be completely understood without a comprehensive knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, the cultures and times in which the different books were written, and the literary styles used. Jesus knew this when he founded the Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect it. Protestantism is simply the logical consequence of what happens when people tell the Holy Spirit that they can figure it all out on their own. That’s exactly what Luther, Calvin, et al did and that is why we have 41,000+ Protestant denominations today. Sorry if this came off as a bit of a rant. I should have gone to bed an hour ago

 

[po18guy]

It is entropy.

 

[JonNC]

=thessalonian;8973314]In reading all the posts from protestants on various boards and listening to many radio shows attended protestant services my assessment of protestantism is that it is a smorgasbord of theologies of which each individual protestant will have their scriptures lined up to defend as the Word of God, yet which clearly cannot all be true. I.e. 7 year premil, 3.5year pre-mil, postmil, no-mil, amil, etc. etc. Just as one example of the multitude of theologies on one topic that you all will defend to the grave.

Put another way - They protest the Catholic Church (Whch is where they get their name) for they KNOW that she is full of errors, yet boldly assert a selection from the smorgasbord of conflicting doctrine that they KNOW are completely compatible with the Word of God.

The term protestant" does not come from a protest of the Catholic Church, or her teachings. The term comes from the protestation at the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529, which was a government attempt to limit religious expression.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Diet_of_Speyer

My question is how can they claim to KNOW anything?

Rather condescending, don’t you think? There are may brilliant, learned people in history who were members of non-Catholic western communions.

It is funny, I listen to a local protestant radio station and it has lutherans on declaring baptismal regeneration and infant baptism and then baptists on who deny both of these things. OSAS and the possibility of falling away, dispensationalists, preterists, partial preterists, you name it and various combinations of the above.

Yeah, this is why there is not, nor has there ever been a Protestant Church, and why the term is rather useless, except perhaps as a convenient way to say non-Catholic western Christian communions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In most of the Protestant communities that I’ve had contact with, end times theology (e.g. premil, amil, etc.) is of secondary importance and, when two Protestants disagree, they just disagree, they don’t anathematize each other or break fellowship.

Luherans are amil, and while eschatology isn’t the first issue on our list, we completely reject the dispensationism, pre and post ideas, etc.

Gosh, read the Lutheran confessions. Some of the harshest criticisms there are reserved for anabaptists, Calvinists, and the like. In the LCMS, we don’t have fellowship with any protestant group, though some other Lutheran synods do - Porvoo is an example.

porvoochurches.org/whatis/index.php

It is curious, though. With some here at CAF, if we are divided, that is cause for criticism. With others here at CAF, if we reach agreement for altar and pulpit fellowship, such as Porvoo, it is a cause of criticism.

Jon

 

[Zundrah]

In reading all the posts from protestants on various boards and listening to many radio shows attended protestant services my assessment of protestantism is that it is a smorgasbord of theologies of which each individual protestant will have their scriptures lined up to defend as the Word of God, yet which clearly cannot all be true. I.e. 7 year premil, 3.5year pre-mil, postmil, no-mil, amil, etc. etc. Just as one example of the multitude of theologies on one topic that you all will defend to the grave.

Put another way - They protest the Catholic Church (Whch is where they get their name) for they KNOW that she is full of errors, yet boldly assert a selection from the smorgasbord of conflicting doctrine that they KNOW are completely compatible with the Word of God.

My question is how can they claim to KNOW anything?

It is funny, I listen to a local protestant radio station and it has lutherans on declaring baptismal regeneration and infant baptism and then baptists on who deny both of these things. OSAS and the possibility of falling away, dispensationalists, preterists, partial preterists, you name it and various combinations of the above.

Now that the pot is stirred. Discuss.



Gerald

Protestantism is a bag of sweets.

Protestantism is to use scripture against scripture.

Protestantism for me is to simply reject one or more things that the Catholic Church teaches. Difference is, I will not shout and scream about it and I will not run away from the Church just because of a handful of problems.

 

[thessalonian]

In most of the Protestant communities that I’ve had contact with, end times theology (e.g. premil, amil, etc.) is of secondary importance and, when two Protestants disagree, they just disagree, they don’t anathematize each other or break fellowship.

You should have listened to the spat that broke out on our local protestant radio station when the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanagraph came out as Amil. Jan Markell developed a hatred for him. She is pre-mill and it is her main theme on her program on the same station.

 

[brb3]

the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanagraph came out as Amil. Jan Markell developed a hatred for him.

Everybody likes Hank … and he’s not anti-catholic. Much of his Bible Answers are in agreement with the Catholic viewpoint.